Victor makras with whom wed be nowhere. When the board of supervisors passed this fossil free sf was born. And it was born as me going alone to the retirement board and getting glared at. Luckily things changed shortly thereafter and its only continued to grow and grow and grow. As youve heard the retirement board has been recalcitrant to say the least. So i want to thank you supervisor avalos and peskin and the staff of the offices for getting us to this point. I dont really have anything to say besides this is an exceptionally common sense measure. We need to put the citys money where its mouth is and i guess to lee hepners point in terms of specifying the motion i want to provide an example of the retirement board and the commitments they make and the follow through. So one of the milestones was to divest from coal as a good first step. They have been forced to do that by the legislature. So they took a vote, i believe december 2015 to divest from coal. Staff would come back with an Implementation Plan and at the time the recommendation was to divest from less from 1 of their coal hold. Not 1 of the total fossil fuel but the think they said theyd divest, less than 1 is what eventually put in front of the board and passed and i dont think the divestments have been booked by the managers so we give them time in a way that it wont negatively impact the funds beneficiaries. This is par for the course. And your input and voice is appreciated. Thank you. Commissioner thank you. Commissioner mr. Holtzman, a quick question, actually, and thank you for your longstanding advocacy on the issue its been noticed and appreciated in the bay area. I was hoping youd be able to and if you dont know the answer, thats fine but in the most recent board of supervisors resolution, do you know if that specifies full divestment in an x amount of years or number of years. Im hoping to get at the question by mr. Helpner. The original motion in 2013 gave the fiveyear time line which was kind of the judicious and conservative time frame that was being used by divestment campaigns and five years was adopted by the new york city and state fund which dwarfed San Franciscos holding. The most recent measure harkens back to the original measure. Basically calls forth that these things have not taken place and that in fact these worsening circumstances have been added to the whereass and focuses them on reporting where they are on the original effort and to provide progress reports with respect to the engagement on fossil fuels and the votes they have taken. But the most recent measure does not provide a time certain by which they must divest i think with the full understanding that their first measure did not have that effect. Commissioner thank you. Maggie thomas, next gen america. Good evening. Thank you very much for having all of us here today. My name is maggie thomas. Im here today on behalf of next gen america. A National Political organization dedicated addressing Climate Change. Im here to speak in support of the resolution you have in front of you. This week the San Francisco pension board has an important opportunity to lead and uphold its fiduciary responsibility to san franciscans by committing to divest from fossil fuels. Last week new york city made the decision to divest its pension. If they can do it, we can too. Divestment is not only the moral thing to do but the right financial decision. Next gen founder was an investor and wrote, quote, divestment is the only fiscally responsible decision tying the future to the dirty industry that will wreak destruction on our shores. It would cost San Francisco employees a lot of money in the long run. Climate change is already here. The sea level is expect to the rise by several feet submerging sections of our city. No amount of financial skepticism could justify putting neighbors at risk and fossil fuel investments is a bad bet. Coal, oil and natural gas are shrink because their products are being rendered obsolete. With wind and solar the trend will continue. Climate change is the greatest challenge of our life time but also one of our greatest economic opportunities. In 2015 investigators who dumped fuel stocks earned more. Today 830 public and private institutions have divested. Its time for the San Francisco pension fund to add its name to the list. I urge the commission to support this resolution. Thank you. Commissioner next. I just moved back from new york city so im hoping to bring some of that good divestment energy here with me. And being back in california, where i grew up, im reminded to me this is the most beautiful place on earth and threatened by Climate Change and that got personal to me because i was born in the Sonoma Valley and never expected wildfires to take place but we know San Francisco has been a leader on the issue. The commission here im honored to be with tonight but the bar has been raised by mayor bill de blasio. Im proud to be speak inning support of your resolution and the vote tomorrow. And this is truly a global phenomenon. I was glad to hear david mention the 5 trillion number but were actually over 6 trillion at this point. Political winds are make more difficult to visualize a longterm future for coal, oil and gas. The fourth largest Pension System in the u. S. Has done their Due Diligence and found divestment is the prudent and responsible thing to do and richmond and los angeles suing oil and gas for climate impacts the investment risk of the companies continues to compound. I understand one of the strongest arguments being made is an argument about engagement rather than divestment and were familiar with this argument so i want to address that directly. Let me be clear, you cannot engage over a protracted period of time and protect workers pensions. It is not in the spirit of a fiduciary or ethical obligation. Its the worst performing sector over the last five years. Abysmally so at the level of treasuries. This is not going to come back because of everything we heard tonight about the inef inevitability of sector. Trumps Administration May be doing everything in its power to dismantle health and safety resolutions among other things but theres on opposite reaction at play and thats the role of local government which will be highlighted here in San Francisco this september with the Global Climate action summit. Its a perfect opportunity to show the level of leadership and end by saying San Francisco, Technology Capital of the world and theres a letter i want to present in support of the vote. Commissioner reverend bringham. From the Episcopal Diocese of california. Ive been in those seats and know how long the meetings can go and ill be very brief. Im the founder of california interfaith power and light. We have 700 congregations in california and you know all the reasons we need to divest whether its focussing on Climate Change or air pollution or the poor people suffer the most. Those reasons are all quite evident and you all already know them. But what you may not know is the Episcopal Diocese of california has divested as well. We have 400 clergy in the diocese of california and it was a struggle because the retiring clergy depend on their pension. They havent made a lot of money over these years of being clergy and it wasnt an easy thing to get that resolution passed but we were able because we brought in a the womans name is nancy found from Double Bottom line and was able to show how its physically possible and beneficial to divest and get into Green Technologies and renewable energy. And we have the ability of clergy to talk about the moral and right thing do and that message needs to get to the board to get the resolution passed and get california on the right track. Thank you. Commissioner is there any other Public Comment . Good evening. My name is dale ratford and im a law student at uc hastings i have a memo where the board will violate its fiduciary duties as professors whose law school affiliations are for identification purpose only. Investment firm avoids the risk of financial loss when they become stranded assets. As a large asset holder, the International Investment bank, barclays, projects the oil industry is poised to lose more than 22 million in revenue. The coal industry to lose 5. 8 trillion and the gas industry to lose 5. 5 trillion over the next 20 years. Additionally, studies have shown screening fossil feed portfolios is financially feasible and a number of organizations have divest from fossil fuels and performed above the market average. Therefore the financially responsible action is to divest now. Second, divesting will not reach a fiduciary duty. It requires each member act with care, skill and caution a board member would exercise. Divesting is the financially sound decision to make and the principles for responsible investing, this board approved in 2017 supported divesting it. Requires the Board Members consider the detrimental impact fossil fuels will have on Climate Change which is already impacting our environment. Therefore, a prudent Board Members would consider the environmental, social and financial Harms Associated with fossil fuels and support the investment. Thank you. Commissioner thank you. If there is no other Public Comment is there a motion to approve the resolution urging the San Francisco retirement board to divest from fossil fuel companies . Commissioner colleagues i do want to take a moment and consider the language proposed by supervisor peskins office . Well have a motion, a second and then discussion. We need a motion are you making the motion. Im moving. Second. Commissioner seconded by commissioner hoyos. Discussion. I would like to consider the amendment language in two parts. The first part being beginning and i can circulate another copy here beginning with immediate divestment of assets that have issued negative returns for commissioner, if you can say the page and line number. Yes. That would be page 5, line 12. So i believe the insertion point would be from fossil fuel companies and full divestment from fossil fuel companies and the inversion point goes in after that to try to define what full and expeditious is. So in two parts to consider, beginning with immediate divestment of assets with negative returns five or more years and full divestment in x amount of years which was not provided but im hoping we can have a discussion and figure out whether to include that language or not. So did you want to consider them as two separate amendments or consider it as one . Id consider it as two spr d spratd separate amendments. Beginning with immediate divestment of assets with negative returns for five or more years and full divestment in x years. Sorry, thats the second. Were starting discussion on the first one. To offer my thoughts on what weve seen as far as back as commissioner hochschilds presentation on the of the market, im comfortable with the First Amendment but i welcome your thoughts. Commissioner hoyos. I want to state my agreement with that position. Commissioner so i move then to accept this First Amendment into the resolution. Second. Commissioner moved by commissioner ahn to accept the amendment and seconded by commissioner hoyos. All officer favor . Any opposition . Abstention . The motion carries. And the Second Amendment is full divestment in x years based on Public Comment im still not sure what the time line is. I expect part will be explained in full detail at the retirement Board Meeting tomorrow. As of now, im not quite sure if we can move this particular amendment forward without being able to define the number of years unless my colleagues think otherwise. I have a concern if we put this forward i think it was 20 of the fund there will be a sense of it left hanging out there that we ask for the immediacy on this part but the rest were comfortable letting it go forward. I dont know if thats how itd go down and dont feel well enough informed but i wanted to put that out there. Commissioner commissioner, i thought i heard five years. Was i mistaken. I believe it was the first board resolution. Commissioner could we discuss the viability from your perspective commissioner makras are we allowed to invite him to do that. Commissioner commissioner makras. Sure, we can talk about it again im here on my individual capacity. And we thank you. The last resolution asked for 180 days and i believe thats aggressive. But appropriate. 20 of the holdings have never given us return to 100 million is basically sitting there at a negative for fiveyears plus but if you were to approach it in a broader sense from what i hear theres lots of people that have comfort of three year term is something that many people have shared with me would give staff lots of latitude to prudently sell them over a threeyear period. Commissioner commissioner wald. Again, i have zero minus negative in the expertise on the time period but i want to second commissioner stephensons comment and note when Supreme Court issued a decision in brown vs. Board of education they told the states to desegregate with deliberate speed. And i am at least old enough to understand that took an extraordinarily long and unnecessary long time period and indeed we havent achieved it now. We would be well serve having a deadline. By having something in this resolution which i think is really a terrific resolution. I comment you both on it that said do it by now or else. And the ore else is implied. Keep in mind its stocks. Its not something youre going out and lock for a buyer for. These are stocks. You plug it into a computer and say sell and no one knows whos selling it. We can look up each stock and see the volume of each symptom each each stock every day and when they say prudently sell off if the buy sells are 10,000 youre not putting 10 up because it may change the needle and you choose what youre going to sell or buy not to tip off your hand. My best guest is i dont think the companies would move the needle in any significant way if they were sold over a sixmonth period. I have heard three years and ive received clarification that five years was also mentioned by supervisor peskins office. What does this commission feel comfortable with . Commissioner hoyos. Commissioner im moved by the fact that commissioner makras said 180 days is viable as a person whos been working on this quite a while. I understand you put three years out there and i believe it motioned to perhaps two to three years. I think i agree an ambitious time line is important. Im curious, we can have dialogue. Perhaps its a question for debbie, if its okay to seek your opinion here. I want to be on the 180 side of things and feel the advocates would be in support of that. I also know we had a sense of where acting mayor was this morning reed and do we know when the transition happens to the new acting mayor . I understood the acting mayor was perhaps going to make a position public tomorrow. Im wondering about the implications. If were bold as commissioner hochschild urges to do and say 180 days my sense is this is a nonbinding resolution. It could be the most aggressive desire expressed to the pension board. So is there a down side . Commissioner id say every decision you make is where your instinct and comfort zone is in terms of your level of knowledge and ambition. Thats is up to you to weigh those two things together and make what you would say is the most informed vote you can and not worry about the other. Then id be inclined i dont know if i can move or how it goes but if its protocolwise appropriate to make a motion, i certainly feel comfortable in light of commissioner makras expertise aligning our time line with the time line hes proposed. Lets have more discussion, i think. Commissioner so the choice is 180 days, three years and five years . If theres an outer limit you should already use the outer limit. Commissioner speak into the mic, please. Commissioner i think if theres an outer limit you should use the outer limit. We are trying to define the phrase in resolution that says as expeditiously as possible or Something Like that. I dont think we shut say two to three. I think we should say it personally. I dont know how i feel about 180 days though. Do we have more questions about 180 days given we have a commissioner here whos been working on this several years . If theres still discomfort among us are there keeper questions you might pose . Commissioner the only question is how do you think youre colleagues would feel if the Environment Commission came in and said we think you should do 180 days. Thats the flip side. And once again im here on my own time. I understand that. Urgings from the board of supervisors has gone to deaf ears. I do believe any resolution with a defined date say better resolution. If commissioner hoyos makes that motion ill second it. Commissioner please make the motion. I believe the motion do you want to let go of your motion . Thank you. Commissioner so for the second portion of the originally proposed language is from the immediate assets of issued and negative returns of five or more years so we already voted on that and then and full divestment within 180 days. I move we amend the current resolution to add the following language in full divestment within 180 days. So moved and seconded by commissioner wald. All in favor. Any opposed . Any abstention . Motion carries. [applause] commissioner how to the resolution. Now the resolution. I just want to commend all the people working so hard on this issue and the activists in the community doing their very best and theyre out every year to get it to the point it is now. Amen. I second that too. Commissioner i move to approve the resolution with a